Minimally Invasive Discectomy and Decompression for Lumbar Spine using Tubular Retractor System: Technique, Learning Curve and Outcomes

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To study the indications, technical nuances, learning curve, and outcomes associated with minimally invasive tubular discectomy of spine (MITDS) and minimally invasive tubular decompression (MITD) using the tubular retractor system and compare the outcomes with open microdiscectomy and open decompression.

Materials and Methods All patients who underwent MITDS and MITD received a trial of conservative management for 6 weeks prior to surgery. Patients who had undergone open microdiscectomy and open decompression during the same period were used as controls. Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, preop and postop visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, preop and postop Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, duration of hospital stay, complications, and need for redo surgery were analyzed.

Results Thirty-two patients who underwent MITDS and 8 patients who underwent MITD were compared with an equal number of patients who underwent open microdiscectomy and open decompression, respectively. MITDS and MITD were associated with shorter hospital stay. Short-term pain outcome was better in MITDS and MITD group, although it was not statistically significant in MITD group. Functional outcome measured in terms of ODI at 6 months was not statistically significant between minimally invasive and open procedures.

Conclusion Both MITDS and MITD have a significant learning curve and have a distinct advantage of shorter hospital stay. MITDS has the distinct advantage of better short-term pain relief compared with open procedures. For MITD, comparison of short-term pain relief requires a larger sample size. To establish long-term advantages of MITDS and MITD, larger sample size and long-term follow-up are needed.

Publication History

Article published online:
10 February 2022

© 2022. Neurological Surgeons’ Society of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

• References

• 1 Holbrook TL, Grozier K, Kelsey JL. et al The Frequency of Occurrence, Impact, and Cost of Selected Musculoskeletal Conditions in the United States. Chicago: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons 1984: 154-156
• 2 Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med 1934; 211: 210-215
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Caspar W. A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through a microsurgical approach. Adv Neurosurg 1977; 4: 74-80
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane Review. Spine 2007; 32 (16) 1735-1747
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Arts M, Brand R, van der Kallen B, Lycklama à Nijeholt G, Peul W. Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (01) 51-57
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Adams MA, Hutton WC. The mechanical function of the lumbar apophyseal joints. Spine 1983; 8 (03) 327-330
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Goel VK, Fromknecht SJ, Nishiyama K, Weinstein J, Liu YK. The role of lumbar spinal elements in flexion. Spine 1985; 10 (06) 516-523
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Hindle RJ, Pearcy MJ, Cross A. Mechanical function of the human lumbar interspinous and supraspinous ligaments. J Biomed Eng 1990; 12 (04) 340-344
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Paradigm changes in spine surgery: evolution of minimally invasive techniques. Nat Rev Neurol 2012; 8 (08) 443-450
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME. et al Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2011; 69 (01) 135-144 , discussion 144
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Garg B, Nagraja UB, Jayaswal A. Microendoscopic versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2011; 19 (01) 30-34
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Palmer S. Use of a tubular retractor system in microscopic lumbar discectomy: 1 year prospective results in 135 patients. Neurosurg Focus 2002; 13 (02) E5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21 (02) 179-186
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Cho DY, Lin HL, Lee WY, Lee HC. Split-spinous process laminotomy and discectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a preliminary report. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6 (03) 229-239
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O. Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2007; 61 (03) 545-549 , discussion 549
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Cahill KS, Levi AD, Cummock MD, Liao W, Wang MY. A comparison of acute hospital charges after tubular versus open microdiskectomy. World Neurosurg 2013; 80 (01/02) 208-212
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R. Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 2002; 97 (02) 213-217
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008; 51 (02) 100-105
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (05) S146-S154
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Lee C-W, Yoon KJ, Ha SS. Comparative analysis between three different lumbar decompression techniques (microscopic, tubular, and endoscopic) in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis: preliminary report. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 6078469
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Brock M, Kunkel P, Papavero L. Lumbar microdiscectomy: subperiosteal versus transmuscular approach and influence on the early postoperative analgesic consumption. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (04) 518-522
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 German JW, Adamo MA, Hoppenot RG, Blossom JH, Nagle HA. Perioperative results following lumbar discectomy: comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Focus 2008; 25 (02) E20
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Castro-Menéndez M, Bravo-Ricoy JA, Casal-Moro R, Hernández-Blanco M, Jorge-Barreiro FJ. Midterm outcome after microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: 4-year prospective study. Neurosurgery 2009; 65 (01) 100-110 , discussion 110, quiz A12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Caspar W, Campbell B, Barbier DD, Kretschmmer R, Gotfried Y. The Caspar microsurgical discectomy and comparison with a conventional standard lumbar disc procedure. Neurosurgery 1991; 28 (01) 78-86 , discussion 86–87
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Ebeling U, Reichenberg W, Reulen HJ. Results of microsurgical lumbar discectomy. Review on 485 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1986; 81 (01/02) 45-52
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Clark AJ, Safaee MM, Khan NR, Brown MT, Foley KT. Tubular microdiscectomy: techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 2017; 43 (02) E7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, Cheng CC. Less systemic cytokine response in patients following microendoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Res 2005; 23 (02) 406-411
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Teli M, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M. et al Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy. Eur Spine J 2010; 19 (03) 443-450
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC. Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS). Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009; 302 (02) 149-158
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y. et al Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy, microendoscopic discectomy, and microdiscectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: minimum 2-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 28 (03) 317-325
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Chen Z, Zhang L, Dong J. et al Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: two-year results of a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2020; 45 (08) 493-503
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Yokosuka J, Oshima Y, Kaneko T, Takano Y, Inanami H, Koga H. Advantages and disadvantages of posterolateral approach for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. J Spine Surg 2016; 2 (03) 158-166
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Gushcha A. et al Advantages and weaknesses of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: algorithm selection. Coluna/Columna 2018; 17 (03) 200-205
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar